Sharing iP code quality feedback [for @MGRL2201] - Round 2

[nus-se-bot]

We did an automated analysis of your code to detect potential areas to improve the code quality. We are sharing the results below, so that you can avoid similar problems in your tP code (which will be graded more strictly for code quality).

IMPORTANT: Note that the script looked for just a few easy-to-detect problems only, and at-most three example are given i.e., there can be other areas/places to improve.

Aspect: Tab Usage

No easy-to-detect issues 👍

Aspect: Naming boolean variables/methods

No easy-to-detect issues 👍

Aspect: Brace Style

No easy-to-detect issues 👍

Aspect: Package Name Style

No easy-to-detect issues 👍

Aspect: Class Name Style

No easy-to-detect issues 👍

Aspect: Dead Code

No easy-to-detect issues 👍

Aspect: Method Length

No easy-to-detect issues 👍

Aspect: Class size

No easy-to-detect issues 👍

Aspect: Header Comments

No easy-to-detect issues 👍

Aspect: Recent Git Commit Message (Subject Only)

possible problems in commit 91a4400:

added assert messages

• Not in imperative mood (?)

possible problems in commit caf4dfa:

polished code

• Not in imperative mood (?)

possible problems in commit 472fac4:

added update function

• Not in imperative mood (?)

Suggestion: Follow the given conventions for Git commit messages for future commits (no need to modify past commit messages).

❗ You are not required to (but you are welcome to) fix the above problems in your iP, unless you have been separately asked to resubmit the iP due to code quality issues.

ℹ️ The bot account @nus-se-bot used to post this issue is un-manned. Do not reply to this post (as those replies will not be read). Instead, contact cs2103@comp.nus.edu.sg if you want to follow up on this post.